Black is rarer rather than better

Having compared the silver and black finishes "in the metal", I prefer the silver finish. To my eye it complements better the "retro" look of the FA limiteds.

I also suspect the silver finish will be harder wearing, as it is deposited metal rather than paint.

Cheers,
Reuben0

Multi-coated versions have "MC" next to "Jupiter 9".

You can also tell from the colour of the glass. The single coated version has a faint brown colour and the multi-coated version has the usual purple colour.

Cheers,
Reuben0

I've heard that too, but I have two of them (one multi-coated and one single-coated and different ages) and they're both good.

Yes, but screw-mount lenses are actually easier to use than M's and K's, as you can just leave the camera in Av and it meters with whatever aperture you've set on the lens.

Cheers,
reuben0

I would recommend the Jupiter-9 85/2. It's a bit soft at f2.0, but very sharp from f2.8 onwards and has terrific bokeh, probably due to its 15 rounded aperture blades (yes 15!). It's actually a copy of an old Zeiss design and compares very favourably with the K85/1.8, which I also have and it's miles better than the M85/2 which I sold on a long time ago.

[It's also worth noting that any of the above lenses blow away the much lauded DA 50-200 at 85mm].

You can get them on EvilBay very cheaply. I bought a new "old-stock" one from a bloke in Russia for £35. It's worth getting a multi-coated one rather than the more common single-coated ones though.

HTH,
Reuben0

Here's a few I took (all K10D with FA*24/2) -

Daniel Bridge and LiamD chimping. Peter Elgar with his Pentax 67:




Peter's young son Hughie - NOT USING PENTAX!!:




St Albans Cathedral (I guess we all took this shot )

Apologies, didn't realise this had all been done to death

Cheers,
Reuben0

That's true John, but DOF is a matter of perception rather than an intrinsic property of a lens. Let me explain why

When a lens is focussed at a particular distance, detail at that distance is rendered sharply. As you examine details further from the focus point (in front or behind), they become gradually less sharp until we think of them as "out of focus". There isn't a sharp cutoff between in and out of focus that is somehow an intrinsic property of the lens.

Now what we regard as sharp/in focus depends on the degree of magnification that you inspect the details with. Large formats/small prints require much less critical sharpness to appear in focus than large prints/small formats. This sharpness criterion is what the "Circle of Confusion" species. I'm sure we've all had the experience of looking at an image in print or on the screen and it looks in focus until we've zoomed in and realised the focus point is slightly different and the parts we thought were in sharp focus are now less so.

Note that as CoC is subjective, There isn't a "correct" value. Thus, some people use 0.025 mm as the circle of confusion for 35mm format, while others will use 0.030 mm. Digital is given a smaller CoC value than film, as the format is smaller. Similarly, you might want to use a smaller value than normal for large prints from film.

It's easy to verify all of this for yourself, rather than just taking my word for it, by trying out a DOF calculator like the one mentioned earlier. Those mathematically inclined can inspect the previously cited DOF equations.

Cheers,
Reuben0

John, I'm afraid that's not mathematically correct

There is no such thing as an absolute DOF value for any lens/format. It all depends on what "circle of Confusion" value you apply (which is a measure of how sharp the OOF parts have to be to be regarded as in focus):

The relevant equations are here:
http://www.dofmaster.com/equations.html

Cheers,
Reuben0

That's not quite correct - you will have more DOF than a 75mm/1.4 on film, but less than the 50/1.4 had on film (technically, this is because digital requires a smaller "Circle of Confusion".

If you play with an online DOF calculator (eg www.dofmaster.com), you will see what I mean

Cheers,
Reuben0

Thanks for the response Matt!

I only use off-camera flash for macro, so lack of HS is no problem for me and given the high cost of tethering, I think I'll stick to wireless

--
Cheers,
Reuben0